Comment On a Colleague's Editorial

After reading Nisha's editorial, I have to say that I sympathize with the frustration of airport travel and the increased security measures that have been implemented by the TSA. While some feel that the increased security is a necessary evil, I feel like our planes are not really much safer than they were to begin with. Part of the reason why I feel this way is because of the rent-a-cop security that dominates much of the enforcement, like Nisha mentioned. Additionally, I would have included some backup in the article to show the repercussions of poor implementation. For example,  despite all of these high-tech gadgets that have been put into use, I feel that if someone really wanted to blow up an airplane, they would find a way to do it regardless of the security step up. It only takes one small hole or flaw in a scan reading or a carefully placed inconspicuous explosive to do the job, and while airport security has been increased dramatically in most airports, it would be much less difficult to hop on a plane in a small airport and get on a connecting flight without going through security a second time. Not to say that I would WANT to do this (I feel obligated to say that to keep some man in a black suit from knocking on my door), I am merely making the point that we are pouring money into tightening security in a system that will always have holes.

The Death Penalty: Should We Have The Power?

Humans are a very distinct species, to say the least. There is no other kind of animal that commits mass genocide in the sake of property or superiority. But are we special enough to take another human life based on his or her past actions? This has become a very controversial practice in many modern day societies, which brings forth the question: is this capital punishment in the United States justifiable or barbaric? Even though there are many states that have outlawed it, there has been no national ban and I think that needs to change. Capital punishment is not an acceptable means of punishing a criminal, and that there are alternatives that are just as effective in many cases, such as lifetime imprisonment.

One of the more popular debates on capital punishment in the United States is its effectiveness as a crime deterrent and if killing criminals really saves the lives of the innocent. There have been many studies conducted on this, each with different results. However, experts in this field  state that the evidence is not conclusive because the information in these studies was far too limited and generic to relate to capital punishment alone. There are just too many other variables that are potential causes of murder that interfere with this data. Based on this, the amount of innocent lives that capital punishment saves is impossible to discern because it is not certain whether or not it even significantly deters murder at all. Additionally, only roughly 1 in 300 homicide cases actually results in an execution, so even if you do murder someone you are unlikely to be sentenced to death. Odds like these make it seem like it is a situation comparable to a lottery, except that it is quite rare to lose. Does this indicate that we are picking and choosing who deserves to live after committing murder and who doesn’t? Not only is this unfair, but it tends to undermine one of the main reasons why we perform capital punishment in the first place; scaring people out of murdering others. It doesn’t make sense that we are killing people in the sake of frightening the masses if you only have a 0.3 percent chance of being executed after committing a murder yourself.

In fact, if we largely stopped capital punishment and instead sent the criminals to jail, it may be even more of a murder deterrent than killing them in the first place. In the economy we have today, sending someone to jail makes all the difference. A study of costs shows that death row cases cost taxpayers $2.3 million per case, compared with $750,000 for life sentence cases. With the many budget cuts the government is having to make in this economy, having a couple extra million dollars to devote to policing has the potential to be an equally effective murder deterrent. Stepping up policing in areas with high crime rates would be a much more concrete method in preventing murder. It is a shame that economic gains may be the primary argument behind restricting capital punishment, but it is a benefit behind it nonetheless.

Ultimately, many of the primary motives behind the support of capital punishment are not as definite as most people may think. But one thing is certain: our nation's policy on capital punishment, if not revised, may not even be carrying out its purpose, and if this is the case, then it is not worth the death of a human being.

Comments on "Immigration Reform in The US"

In Mr. Matthews' editiorial, "Immigration reform in the U.S," he provides background and an interesting stance on the issue of illegal immigration. First and foremost, I would like to say that I think this is an excellent editorial and that it was very well written. It provides an interesting stance on the issue of illegal immigration (although not necessarily the side that I would take) and provides logical arguments to support the stance. Additionally, I liked how you provided background on how the current political climate is not very attentive to sensitive issues such as illegal immigration, and I agree completely that SOMEONE needs to bring this issue into the forefront of political debate and concoct a solution.

Although I think this is a great editorial, I will say that the stance I take on this issue is very different from yours. Illegal immigration is not something to be taken lightly; it is a very complex problem and there is no simple solution for it because it is a problem on multiple levels of society. It is an ethical problem; illegal immigration is illegal (duh) and people who do it ARE breaking the law. It is a social problem; people are being racially profiled in a country that is supposed to provide and promote equality for all. And lastly, it is an economic problem; these immigrants are taking jobs that americans could potentially be held by an American citizen. I think that different understandings of the situation create different viewpoints, and from my personal experience I would take a different approach on the issue. Putting fines on businesses who employ illegal immigrants may make jumping the border less appealing, but it also in effect would criminalize a lot of hardworking American businesses, something that I think employers should not have to worry about on top of this economic crisis. Additionally, I know from experience that while the unemployment rate is high in the United States, most Americans are too prideful to take up low paying jobs that a lot of illegal immigrants hold, so if we kicked them out it would be more detrimental to businesses than it would be good. Ultimately, the policy as it is now is criminalizing a group of the American population, illegal as the may be, that works hard and takes jobs that Americans don't want.

Anyways, despite having a different opinion on illegal immigration, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article and look forward to reading your posts in the future.

Digging a Deeper Hole: The US Deficit

The time has once again come for Midterm Elections, and along with them comes the substantial news coverage, campaigning, and excitement. Yet, in their midst, there are many looming issues in the United States that are being overlooked or ignored to make time for campaign coverage. The United States’ total public deficit now approaches 14 trillion dollars, 96 percent of our annual GDP. To those unfamiliar with our country’s debt in the past, it is no trivial amount of chump change. This is over 10 times larger than it was 30 years ago, and the debt to GDP ratio has almost tripled. If that alone doesn’t scare you, get this: our debt increases to grow at a rate of 8.6 billion dollars every day. If nothing is done to control this spiraling rise, we could find ourselves as a nation in very serious trouble. We are literally digging ourselves a hole that we aren’t going to be able to climb back out of if something isn’t done soon. It is predicted that, if we continue down the path we have been taking, in 2012 our debt will eclipse our country’s total GDP, and that by 2050 our debt will be triple the GDP. In this debt-ridden future, Medicare and Medicaid will take up approximately 50% of the total budget, or 1.5 times our nation’s economic output. After I saw the graphs and budget plans the CBO released, I could already feel my hair beginning to fall out. With a national deficit that large, a huge amount of stress is going to be put on the people of the United States (like me). This is an issue that needs to be given a lot more attention than it has been receiving, especially by young adults like me. After all, we’re the ones who are going to have to deal with it, not a bunch of bureaucrats in D.C. They’ll probably be dead or busy using the Medicare that is going to be swallowing our budget. One can only hope that something will change between now and then; becoming a slave to debt is sounding less and less appealing.

Is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce really behind US?

In Lee Fang's post, "U.S. Foreign Funded Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads" on the ThinkProgress blog on October 5th, 2010, he claims that the US Chamber of Commerce has been receiving as much as 850,000 dollars a year from foreign companies in funding. This alone might not seem like something worth fussing over, but many believe that the Chamber of Commerce is using this money in their attack on partisan candidates through ads and other means. This use of funding is likely an infringement on campaign finance law prohibiting foreign funding on election campaigns, but because they successfully killed bills proposing financial transparency, it is impossible to prove anything. Additionally, Fang believes that the Chamber of Commerce allows corporations to fund ad campaigns that attack certain bills that pose as a threat to their interests (such as a health insurance company funding healthcare reform attack ads). If these allegations are true, then I think this is definitely worth disputing.
Fang is trying to appeal to Democrats who are looking for more information about their party and the opposition partisan candidates are facing, as well as readers of the ThinkProgress blog. He is trying to persuade people into opposing the Chamber of Commerce and its supposed foreign funding of  campaign attack ads. While he has proof that the money from foreign funding goes into the same account that the ad funding comes from, he can't prove that the same money is being used. He backs his argument with good statistical evidence as well as testimonies from a number of different Chamber of Commerce officials, but his use of language is definitely swaying the story to appeal to democrats, which may make the situation seem worse than it is. In my opinion, I agree that this whole situation is pretty shady as far allocating the money goes, but I think the real problem is that they can keep their finances private. If financial transparency was mandatory, then it would be obvious whether or not the foreign funding is actually going towards these ad campaigns, and something could be done about it.

How Exactly Does one Weed Out "Home Grown" Terrorists?

In John Farmer Jr.'s article How to Spot a Terrorist, Farmer appeals to those who are unsure of their constitutional rights being adhered to and shows the contraversies of profiling Americans from both a constitutional and law enforcement standpoint. In the article, the author shows his support for a project that the Justice Department is undertaking called the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. This program allows people to report suspicious activity and stores it to look for patterns and potential danger. Many are worried that this initiative will put their constitutional rights in jeopardy, especially those relating to profiling based on race or appearance. The author says that it is a "balanced" way of obtaining information, as it holds suspicious activity as the primary cause of organization and not racial profiling. However, there is another controversy that is brought up; is enforcing this initiative taking away from the police's duty of law enforcement and placing it in intelligence? Farmer doesn't think so. He states that law enforcement officers are trained to look for suspicious activity anyways, such as someone robbing a house or a bank, and that this is no different.
Personally, I do not agree with the Farmer's claim that this will work. The whole initiative itself seems to have a lapse in logic from the start because it relies on the initiative of Joe Dirt to take time out of his workday and come in to report something that most likely isn't even an act of Terrorism. Then, the suspicious events have to be sifted through to find the relevant claims and correlated in a fashion that can't discriminate based on race or appearance. It may just be me, but it seems like it would be pretty difficult to find a terrorist if you don't know what he looks like. Additionally, if law enforcement officers are already trained to look for suspicious activity, then I don't see what additional relevant information this could bring them. His evidence he provides is good, but it seems like he is taking the evidence from sources that are likely to agree with him in the first place, such as a former FBI special agent. Ultimately, the threat of terrorism in our homeland is definitely a growing issue, but I don't think this is the appropriate way to act on it.

Obama's Plan to Increase Infrastructure

In an economy like the one that we live in today, there are many people who are searching an easy fix to this staggering financial crisis. But with unemployment rates rising and much of the stimulus already spent, it seems that there isn't a simple solution. In an attempt to remedy this situation, President Barack Obama plans to invest over 50 billion dollars into infrastructure. This includes rebuilding and renovating over 150 thousand miles of roads and over 150 miles of airport runways, as well as over four thousand miles of new rail construction. In addition to this, he also plans on installing a new air traffic system that is designed to reduce flight time as well as delays. You may be asking yourself, "what the hell is spending my tax dollars on infrastructure going to do for the economy?" The idea is simple enough: In the short term, it hires construction workers, electricians, welders, and other similar workers and gives them much needed jobs that they can complete over the long term. Personally, I think that this idea isn't so bad, considering it will (hopefully) make transportation regular car-less people like me as far as railways and efficient air travel go. Conversely, it might be detrimental to people who do own cars because some of the money that is going towards these infrastructure improvements is coming from tax breaks and other subsidies that the government is giving oil companies, which will most likely raise gas prices.
Overall, I thought this article was a good read because it gives insight into how Obama plans on stimulating our economy for both short term and long term improvements. We might not NEED 150 thousand miles or road improvement, but if it means that it will indirectly make the value of my parent's house go back up, it's fine by me.
Article: Time Politics